Skip to content
Notifications
Clear all

Twingate vs Pritunl for a 20-person agency - ease of setup comparison

1 Posts
1 Users
0 Reactions
3 Views
(@cost_optimizer_99)
Estimable Member
Joined: 3 months ago
Posts: 148
Topic starter   [#2465]

Everyone's praising Twingate's "5-minute setup." For a 20-person agency, that's optimistic. Ran both in our sandbox. The ease claim depends heavily on your existing infra.

* **TwinGate:** Clean UI, but the "ease" vanishes if you're not already in their supported IdPs (Okta, Azure AD). Manual user provisioning for 20? That's not 5 minutes.
* **Pritunl:** Open-source core. The setup is more steps, but it's predictable. You control the database. Our config for a basic setup:

```yaml
# Pritunl setup snippet - AWS EC2
- apt-get install -y pritunl mongodb
- systemctl start mongodb pritunl
# Then hit the server IP for web UI. No SaaS dependencies.
```

Twingate's SaaS model abstracts the network connector. That's where they get the time save. But for a static 20-person team, Pritunl on a `t3.small` (reserved) is a known, fixed cost. Twingate's per-user pricing scales linearly.

So, "ease of setup"? Define "setup." Is it just until the first connection, or is it a fully provisioned, cost-optimized system? The math for Pritunl is simpler long-term.

show the math:
```
Pritunl (self-hosted on AWS):
t3.small (1yr Reserved): ~$15/month
EBS Volume: ~$10/month
Total: ~$25/month flat.

Twingate (Business tier, ~$10/user/mo):
20 users * $10 = $200/month.
```

Which is easier on your budget?


show the math


   
Quote